Maleness and femaleness
Jun. 11th, 2009 07:13 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
It's never wise to generalise about large groups, and "men" and "women" are among the largest groups in existence, whether you count the physical gender of the body at birth or the gender identified with by the individual. But everybody does it. People talk about "women's rights" as though all women wanted exactly the same rights, people talk about what "men" have done as if there was some sort of immortal male hive mind to which all males were in thrall (there isn't, is there?), whereas the spectrum of diversity contained in those two small, simple words "men" and "women" makes almost any meaningful pronouncement impractical.
But there is a cultural gestalt of "maleness" which, unlike the idealised notion of "femininity" against which the women's movement has been rebelling for years, seems to me to be more or less accurate in some if not most respects. Some of its chief characteristics:
Men believe only the opinions of men are important.
Men are either incapable of, or actively avoid, empathy.
Men exercise control over their territory through untidiness.
Men have no patience, and will resort to force at the slightest provocation.
Men do not consider consequences.
Men enjoy losing self-control and see no reason not to.
Men think women need them.
And so on. Obviously not all men fit this stereotype completely, though many in my experience have come remarkably close...but the problem I see, the difference between the male and female stereotypes, is that in general, this misleading image is not being rebelled against like its counterpart, but embraced and promoted. We (as a gender) seem to want to be like that, even to be proud of it. Magazines like Nuts and Zoo and Loaded, celebrating unreconstructed maleness at its worst, actually do well, and I see none specifically advocating an alternative image.
I remember a series of commercials for the first one of those, in which women were depicted trying to deal with domestic emergencies (and failing of course because Women Are Useless) while a sneering voice-over said "Women! Don't expect any help on a Tuesday!" Without a break, the same voice then went on "Nuts about women? Sport? Motors?" and extolled the supposed virtues of the rag in question. The jarring disjunct between the two uses of the word "women"--on the one hand, the real person in need of help but obviously not considered important enough to be given it, and on the other, the airbrushed, objectified nudes or semi-nudes with which male readers were invited to people their fetid imaginations--appalled me, as did the advertisers' seeming unawareness thereof. (In retrospect, they were probably perfectly well aware of it. Sometimes getting people talking about an advert is enough, even if they're outraged by it.)
As long as this state of affairs continues--as long as the brainless, infantile, violent caveman/lager-lout image is promoted as an ideal of maleness instead of being derided as an outmoded cliché--then while I will honour individual men who transcend the limitations of their gender and become something more (and I am privileged to know several), I can see very little hope for maleness in general.
But there is a cultural gestalt of "maleness" which, unlike the idealised notion of "femininity" against which the women's movement has been rebelling for years, seems to me to be more or less accurate in some if not most respects. Some of its chief characteristics:
Men believe only the opinions of men are important.
Men are either incapable of, or actively avoid, empathy.
Men exercise control over their territory through untidiness.
Men have no patience, and will resort to force at the slightest provocation.
Men do not consider consequences.
Men enjoy losing self-control and see no reason not to.
Men think women need them.
And so on. Obviously not all men fit this stereotype completely, though many in my experience have come remarkably close...but the problem I see, the difference between the male and female stereotypes, is that in general, this misleading image is not being rebelled against like its counterpart, but embraced and promoted. We (as a gender) seem to want to be like that, even to be proud of it. Magazines like Nuts and Zoo and Loaded, celebrating unreconstructed maleness at its worst, actually do well, and I see none specifically advocating an alternative image.
I remember a series of commercials for the first one of those, in which women were depicted trying to deal with domestic emergencies (and failing of course because Women Are Useless) while a sneering voice-over said "Women! Don't expect any help on a Tuesday!" Without a break, the same voice then went on "Nuts about women? Sport? Motors?" and extolled the supposed virtues of the rag in question. The jarring disjunct between the two uses of the word "women"--on the one hand, the real person in need of help but obviously not considered important enough to be given it, and on the other, the airbrushed, objectified nudes or semi-nudes with which male readers were invited to people their fetid imaginations--appalled me, as did the advertisers' seeming unawareness thereof. (In retrospect, they were probably perfectly well aware of it. Sometimes getting people talking about an advert is enough, even if they're outraged by it.)
As long as this state of affairs continues--as long as the brainless, infantile, violent caveman/lager-lout image is promoted as an ideal of maleness instead of being derided as an outmoded cliché--then while I will honour individual men who transcend the limitations of their gender and become something more (and I am privileged to know several), I can see very little hope for maleness in general.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 08:56 am (UTC)Obviously, other aspects on your list directly touch on that issue as well;
no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 12:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 04:26 pm (UTC)It's not just the women who actually ARE raped, though, even if they're obviously the worst sufferers. Almost every woman circumscribes her life, or is urged by others to do so, based on the need to avoid dangerous situations; very few men do, they don't understand it, and until and unless a large majority of men DO understand we women will have to go on the way we are.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 05:41 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 11:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 12:36 pm (UTC)I don't think women are ideal beings either, but as a general rule they are reliably a cut or several above us, and that needs to be conveyed to all men in a way that will inspire them to be better.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 05:43 pm (UTC)I assume all men and women are mature, intelligent, responsible and empathetic people until or unless they prove me wrong.
At least, that's my ideal. I fall short sometimes, but that is what I try for. I am proven right a decent amount of the time for both genders and all inbetween. :)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 01:14 am (UTC)Men are not inferior to women any more than vice versa.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 01:49 am (UTC)But, you're right...one judges individuals as individuals. It's the only way.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 01:58 am (UTC)I say again that you do your gender a disservice. You personally don't regard that state as normal or desirable, and you have as much right to represent The Male as anyone.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 12:44 pm (UTC)And you know what I mean. :)
Looking back at the post, though, I still think my comments are fair, since they are primarily addressing a culture. The fact is that, while the women's movement is trying to build a cultural image for women that is truer and fairer than the one handed down by the patriarchy, there is no such concerted effort on my side of the fence; there seems, if anything, rather to be a concerted retreat into the old, hopelessly outmoded cultural image of the caveman, the "action hero," the lout. I wish it wasn't so, but I fear it is. I am male, but in many, many ways I don't represent what men think of when they think "male." I don't represent what *I* think of when I think "male," and in most ways that is the result of a deliberate choice. If I see a substantive change for the better, be sure I shall rejoice about it.
Anyway, if I were going to do any gender a disservice, what better than my own?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 02:37 pm (UTC)"Masculine" tends to be direct, active focused, linear and intellectual
"Feminine" tends to be abstract, more passive, emotional.
Everyone has both. Some people tend to be in their masculine more, some people in their feminine, and people *move between them* regularly. The more you can freely and consiously move between the two, the better you can adapt to situations. You don't want them *in balance*, because balance=absolute equality=stagnation. Sometimes you NEED to be in one or the other to progress.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-12 12:48 pm (UTC)One of the things that really appealed to me about neopaganism was the concept of "dynamic polarity"; the pendulum of a clock, not caught up at one end or the other, or even in the middle, but constantly in motion. I've seen some hopes expressed for a future when all genders are the same (dressing the same, looking the same, sounding the same), and I don't like that idea at all. Equal, yes, please gods. Never the same.
Masculinity has the potential to be a good thing, I don't deny that. But it's still mostly potential, and the achievement is long overdue.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-11 05:39 pm (UTC)